1. All materials submitted for publication in the journal must be registered by a member of the editorial board or the executive secretary of the journal, indicating the date of receipt of the manuscript to the publisher. The decision to publish (indicating the date of publication) or to refuse publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief and communicated to the author no later than one month after the manuscript was submitted.

2. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to obligatory preliminary verification for compliance with the established formal requirements for published materials (compliance with the content of the article stated in the title, permissible volume, structure, design, presence of keywords and abstract in Russian and English in required volume, bibliography), as well as the verification of the presence in the manuscript of signs of illegal borrowing of the text.

3. The journal uses double blind peer review. All materials not rejected as a result of preliminary verification are subject to mandatory independent scientific review by at least two experts in an area close to the subject of the material; for both reviewers and author, the review is anonymous. If in the process of reviewing the article any conflict of interest is disclosed, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editors immediately and refuse the review.

By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, an additional peer-review may be carried out, including the case of a second submission of material by the author after correction.

The editorial board of the journal in its work is guided by the legal requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation with regard to copyright, plagiarism and ethical principles supported by the community of leading publishers of scientific periodicals, and also follows the guidelines of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP), standards approved at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22–24, 2010), as well as other regulatory documents governing the ethics of publishing scientific results.

4. The reviewer must check the following points:

1) Research and informational novelty of the material;

2) Correspondence of peer-reviewed material with existing literature, published data and current research on the issue;

3) Indications of illegal borrowing or other forms of violation by the author of scientific ethics;

4) Practical significance of the material (if it is available);

5) Indications of religious and/or apologetic approaches to the formulation and solution of the problems;

6) Clearness of the material, its corresponding to the general and special requirements to the structure of publication or not, its language and style, used terminology, visibility of tables, charts, figures and formulas; whether the findings and conclusions correspond with the obtained data; whether footnotes and references formating is correct;

5. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer should choose one of the following recommendations:

1) Paper may be published as submitted (without improvements and revisal);

2) Paper may be published after introducing corrections and/or additions in accordance with the reviewer comments;

3) Paper is rejected without the right to resubmission.

No more than a single revision of the material submitted for publication is allowed. If an illegal borrowing is found in the material submitted for publication, the material is rejected without the right to revise and resubmit.

6. The author's identity is not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa. Based on the results of the double blind peer review, the author is sent a list of comments and suggestions from scientific reviewers with a proposal to take them into account when finalizing the material and determining further conditions for the publication of the material. If the material is rejected, a motivated refusal is sent to the author.

7. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of an article. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board. If there are discrepancies in the editorial board regarding the publication of the article, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

8. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or the date of the decision to reject the manuscript. Upon receipt of the appropriate request by the editorial board, copies of reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.